Saanen 4th Public Dialogue 30th July 1977.
K: What shall we talk over this morning?
Q: We had a very deep investigation into death and meditation yesterday. The other day we went into awareness. If we could go on, that is, is there an awareness of truth, whether that exists beyond the word? And if it does can this awareness happen?
Q: Could we talk about 'abreaction' and the effect on personal growth, on experiences such as 'the process' you experienced in 1922, the development for person growth.
K: I am not quite clear about that question.
Q: 'Abreaction' - the aspect of the process of what you experienced on August 20 1922, and the effect of such experiences on the personal development.
K: Sorry. What language do you speak, sir?
K: Speak in Italian.
Q: (In Italian)
Q: Sir, is thought employed to realize this radical transformation? And can we know anything which is not in the field of thought, including this awareness? If we employ thought through investigation and through enquiry then is that thought, is that process going to promote this change, this dimension which we speak of in which there is no movement of thought?
Q: Why has thought become such a beastly little heaven?
Q: That is not what I am asking.
Q: No, it is what I am asking.
K: Would you make your question short?
Q: OK. Is thought used, is thought employed to realize, to bring about, to comprehend this radical transformation?
K: I am afraid I haven't understood. Would you speak louder.
Q: I don't know how to make it clearer. I am asking if it is thought that does the investigation, that does the enquiry?
K: I see. Is it thought that enquires, is it thought that observes, is it thought that explores.
Q: Yes. And does that process of that bring about this transformation?
K: Ah. Does that process bring about change, transformation.
Q: Change, right. Thank you.
Q: Sir, I am sorry to repeat the question again. The other day you were kind enough to explain to me but I have confused it. How can thought see its movement?
K: How can thought see its own movement. Right, sir.
Q: Please, sir, in the western tradition there has been a question that all philosophers and thinkers have written about and thought deeply about, and that is: what is man's place in nature. Now with regard to what you have talked about, in the total awareness where there is love, silence and total space, what is nature and what is man's place in nature? Thank you.
K: What is nature... would you repeat it slowly, sir, don't make it too long.
Q: OK. In that total awareness that you have spoken about where there is love, etc., in regard to that, what is nature, what is our perception of nature, what does nature become, and what is our place in that?
K: In this total awareness, in which there is love and so on, what is the relationship between that awareness and nature.
Q: I had to stop at something yesterday, and I would just like to know if you think this is OK.
K: Make it short, please.
Q: I am lonely because I live with motivation. When I drop motivation I have love. But you can't have love when you still have motivation. I won't be lonely any more when I drop motivation.
K: Sorry I haven't got it.
Q: Shall I do it again slowly?
K: Please, make it short.
Q: I am lonely because I live with motivation. When I drop motivation I have love because you can't have love when there is still motivation. So I can't be lonely when I drop motivation. Do you understand?
K: When I drop motivation there is love and... what?
Q: Well I just discovered for myself if I drop all motivation I am left with love. So if I have only love I can't be lonely. And loneliness is having motivation.
K: I think we will go into that. Right? There have been so many questions. The first one was: in this awareness what is truth; why does thought have such an extraordinary deep rooted importance in our life; and the gentleman asked also - I have forgotten. Sir, may we take one question out of all this, and go into that one question which perhaps will answer all the other questions. Can we do that madam, can we do that sir?
Q: I don't think we can do it, sir. I can't see that you can do it. They are all different questions.
K: I think if we can take one question you will see it. I think the gentleman who asked the first question, which was: what is the relationship of awareness and truth? I think if we could take that one question, though there are contradictory questions, personal and that which we talked about the other day, so I think if we take this one question we will see if we can get all the others in, however contradictory they are. May we try it? May we, sir?
He asked a question, which was: what is the relationship between truth and awareness? Would you like to put that question in a different way? What is the relationship of actual facts and truth? Right, would that be right? I am asking you, sir.
K: What is the relationship of violence, which is an actual fact, to truth? What is the actual relationship to a recognized, well known factor in oneself as envy, greed, fear, to truth? What is truth? We will come to that. I daren't touch it for the moment. But we can go into this question by being aware what is reality? Fact, facts, 'what is', reality, truth.
What would we call facts? What would you say, or describe, or talk about, 'what is', actually 'what is', not theoretical, not abstracted, not an abstraction, or a supposition. When we say 'fact', 'what is', what do we mean by those two words? Right? Facts. The fact is that there is war. Right? The fact is that human beings are violent. The fact is there are national divisions, political divisions, religious divisions, ideological divisions. Right? You and me division, the woman and the man division. And the fact is where there is division there is conflict - the Jew, the Arab and so on and so on, the Muslim and the Hindu, and so on. So where there is division there is conflict. That is a fact. That is a law. Right?
Now what is reality then? Is fact different from reality? And is reality different from truth? You understand? Please this needs a little bit of enquiry into this. The questioner asked also: in observation is there transformation morally - if I understood that question rightly. Now we are going to observe together this problem, this question. The fact, what actually is going on, reality, and truth. We said facts, or what actually is - short, tall, broad, brown, white hair, pink and so on, black. Those are facts. The conclusions from those facts - like and dislike - though they are reality as illusions. Right? Reality - no, I must go slowly.
So fact, 'what is', reality and truth. What is the relationship between these three? Is this clear? Let's move. Don't be impatient, please.
Q: Sir, is the fact a fact without words?
K: Is a fact without words. I make a gesture, that is without words, but it is a fact. I look at you, friendly, or with antagonism. That's a fact, there is no word. That's one point.
What is reality? Let's come to the next. What is reality, the real, the actual? Would you say everything that thought has created is reality? Thought has created this tent. Right? It is a reality. Thought has created this microphone. It is a reality. Right? Thought has created the various illusions, which is a reality. Because it is created, one lives with it. You are following? Whatever thought creates is a reality - the building, technological things that thought has produced technologically, computers, televisions and so on. Everything that thought has created is a reality, including the illusions that thought has created. Nationality is an illusion. Right? And god is an illusion, thought has created it. Right? But thought has not created nature - the tree, the things that are outside. Right? But the chair, made out of the wood of a tree is a reality. Please, right? Thought has not created nature, but thought making a chair out of a tree is a reality. So thought has not created nature. One of the questions was: what is the relationship of man and nature. Right?
So there are these things: facts, which thought has created also, I am and I am not, I must be, I will be, I have been; or I will evolve slowly, or that there is no evolution at all psychologically, and so on. The building, the instruments of war, the churches, and the things that are in the churches, all the rituals, all the adorations of images made by the mind or by the hand, are still the product of thought. Right? And the illusions surrounding these churches, the gods within, the saviours within, are all created by thought which are illusions. Right, is this clear? Are we all together in this? It is not very difficult.
So what is the relationship then of reality to truth? Right? Or is there no relationship at all? Does this interest you, all this?
Q: I'd like to know what sort of work one should be doing.
K: Sir, if we understand what kind of life we are, what we are, from self knowledge action takes place. Sir, we have divided action as though it was something totally different from ourselves. Right? We are investigating into really what is total action, which we are coming to - what is total action in our daily life? Right? Look, what shall I do? Let me put it this way, what shall I do confronted with all this confusion, misery, suffering, uncertainty, what shall I do? The country is demanding one thing, society wanting me to do something else, the priest asks me something else. You follow? Amidst is all this immense confusion, which is the right action? That is the question he is asking. What is the right action? Is there right action if I am caught in an illusion? I am in some kind of illusion, such as, I love my god. That is an illusion, because god - if you don't mind, I hope you will not think me blasphemous, or absurd - god is created by thought. No?
Q: Thought is created by what?
K: I am afraid. I am afraid of the future, there is nobody upon whom I can depend, there is somebody who must be protect me, the father figure. And I want to feel consoled by the image which I have created and I say, that's god. Thought has created it. Sorry. I hope you don't mind. Which doesn't mean I am an atheist, on the contrary. That is not god, something else is god.
So I am caught in this illusion that somebody is going to look after me, some superior entity, an outside agency, a god, a guru, or whatever it is, the State. Now in that illusion, which is an illusion, what is right action? Right action can only take place when I have no illusion. Right? When I have no illusion that I am much more superior than anybody else. So action can only take place when the mind is totally free from all illusion. That's obvious. If I am neurotic I can't act rightly. That's obvious. If I am confused I can't act rightly. If I am caught in a particular form of prejudice with its conclusions I can't act rightly. So there must be freedom from all this to act rightly, in daily life, whether it is politics, religion, my wife, children, everything. As long as there is an illusion of any kind action, total action is not possible. That's actually what we are examining: facts, thought creating the microphone which is a reality, it is not an illusion, the building, the tent is not an illusion, the chair is not an illusion, and nature - the tree, the mountains, the sky, the moon, the everlasting stars and the beauty of stars, that is not created by thought. But thought has created illusion which are realities. You follow?
So by investigating very carefully, as we are doing now, what is illusion, and what is reality? If thought has created the tent, and thought also creates various forms of illusion, so both are realities. But there must be recognition, or perception, or awareness, or observation that the church, the building is not an illusion, but what is contained within the church, or in the mosque, or in the temple, is illusion created by man. This is all very simple. Once you see this it becomes extraordinarily clear. Right? Are we meeting each other? Are we?
So to find out what truth is, to let it happen, like spring, like a flower, like the water flowing, let it happen, that can only come about when the mind has put everything in order. Right?
Q: How do you define the word truth?
K: I don't define truth.
K: Sir, sir, you haven't even listened to what I am saying.
Q: I have.
K: I am sorry, you are not, when you are asking a question what is truth, describe truth, I haven't come to it yet. You are asking something which I haven't even enquired into yet. We are enquiring into facts, into reality - reality, as we said, everything that thought has created including the illusions. But thought has not created the mountain, the rivers, the trees, nature. So what is the relationship of man to nature? Which was one of the questions. If man lives within the illusion which he has created he has no relationship. Right? But man without illusion, and seeing what thought has created, and thought has not created nature, and therefore puts thought in its right place, then he has a relationship to nature. I wonder if you get this?
Q: To give up illusions is a very painful process.
K: We are not giving up anything. There is no sacrifice, there is no "I must give up this in order to get that", but to observe this. To observe - please, sir, this is very important, if you would just follow this - to observe what thought has created, and what thought has not created, to observe the illusion - to observe, not say, it is right, or wrong, I must give it up, to see that thought has created illusion as well as the building. The building is necessary, illusions are not necessary: to see that, to observe it, there is no fear, it is a fact. So when you observe the fact there is no fear. I wonder if you see it?
Q: What I don't see is...
K: Have you understood what I said just now?
Q: What I don't see is if thought is creating the illusions...
K: No, no. So we have to discover, we have to find out what it is to observe. Right? We are now going to enquire together into what does it mean to observe. I can observe you with thought. Right? Thought can observe you, say, yes, he is an Irish man, he is a German, long hair, short hair, like and dislike. Right? And being conditioned I don't like Irishmen, or I love Irishmen and not the Englishman. You follow? Now is that observation? Is it one form of observation? Right? A very limited form of observation. But if I want to observe there must be no movement of thought. Right? I wonder if you see that. I want to observe you, just look at you. But if I am prejudiced I can't look, my prejudice is looking. Right? So is there an observation of my prejudice - not that I observe my prejudice, because prejudice is the 'I'. I wonder if you see that. So is there an awareness of prejudice, saying, yes, I am prejudiced? That is an awareness of your prejudice.
So there is an observation without thought, without the movement of thought with its prejudices, with its like and dislike. In this context there is another problem, which is, in observation there is a certain sensitivity. Right? If you observe very closely without any prejudice the sensory activity becomes much more acute and therefore there is more sensitivity. Now the question is there, if I may go into it a little bit: when you are sensitive do you have more pain, more suffering? Go on sir, answer it. I am asking you a question, which is, when there is sensitivity, not that you become sensitive - see the difference, please. I said through observation, without prejudice and so on, there is the sharpening of all the senses, therefore there is greater sensitivity to smell, to taste, to see the trees, the mountains, the rivers, the faces. And being sensitive acutely - when there is sensitivity is the suffering much greater? Or when I am sensitive then everything affects me, either greater pleasure or greater suffering. I wonder if you see the difference? Right?
So we are saying, observe the reality. Reality is everything that thought has created, including the various neurotic activities, neurotic behaviour, neurotic assumptions, and illusions. Right? Those are all creations of thought - to observe it, not thought observes it. I wonder if you see. Are you meeting me, are we getting somewhere, am I meeting you?
K: Sir, can you look at this tent without thought - thought being naming it as tent, seeing the structure, how the arch, the cross bars, without using the words, without thought saying, it is a tent, just to observe? Isn't that possible?
Q: Is that a kind of hypnotism?
K: Oh, for god's sake.
Q: I can't see this.
K: Just to observe, sir, it is not hypnotism. You know what that word means? I don't know if we are talking English, or not.
Q: There is observing, or no observing at all. If you observe the tent you are here, if you are not here you are not observing the tent.
K: Of course not. When you are observing a word called tent you are not actually observing the tent. You are only observing the word. I wonder if you get it.
Q: If I look, I...
K: Sir, look at yourself.
Q: It is much more complicated to look at yourself than just observing the tent.
K: We have said that before.
Q: The actions are on different levels but are going on all the time.
K: We said it is easy to observe a tent, but it is much more complex to observe another human being. We have been into that very, very carefully in the talks and the discussions, I won't go into that again.
K: Sir, this becomes so impossible. Each man interprets it in his own way. Just find out for yourself whether you can observe another human being, your wife, your husband, or your girl, or that man who is speaking, can you observe that person without any image? Right? That's all. Look, sir, if you are married, or if you have a girl friend, or a boy friend, you have created an image about him or her, haven't you? That is a fact, isn't it. Fact. The fact which is the product of thought, the image. Right? Oh, lordy, come on!
Look, I am married, or a girl I have, and through various activities, interrelationship, she has created an image about me, and I have created an image about her. This is an absolute fact. So our relationships are between these two images. These images, or pictures, or ideas, or our conclusions, are the product of thought. Right? So can there be a relationship without images? Right? I am asking.
Q: Sir, can we be sensitive to needs without being prejudiced?
K: You haven't understood what I have said.
Q: That is exactly what you are asking me.
K: No, I am not.
Q: You are talking about observing without prejudice.
K: No, sir, would you listen first.
So I am asking if we have an image about another, that image is created by thought, that image is a reality created by thought, and relationship then is between two thoughts, two images, two pictures, two ideas, two conclusions. So we are asking is that relationship at all? Or relationship exists only when there is no image. Right? Is that possible? My wife calls me a fool. And that is immediately registered in the brain, the picture is formed, and there is antagonism, or anger, or irritation. She may be telling the truth, or she may not be telling the truth. So that there is an image formed. Now is it possible to let the machinery of making the images end?
Q: The answer is yes. And because when you observe without thought and without image, then you have the truth. This is what is truth, to observe without image and without thought.
K: Now is that a reality, a fact, or a supposition? Any supposition of what it is, is an illusion.
Q: If we look without the thought process there is no perception whatsoever.
K: Try it, sir. I say there is. What shall we do? I happen to be sitting on the platform, and you are sitting down there. Therefore people will listen to me, people won't listen to you! But we are saying, have you tried to look at something without thought? Find out, sir, go into it.
So what we are saying now is, thought, which is again let's repeat, thought which is experience, knowledge, stored up in the brain as memory, and the response of memory is thought, which is a material process. A material process. So whatever thought has created is reality, the image between man and woman, the image I have about the tent, the word that creates the meaning, and is there a meaning without the word. Go into it all. And as nature is not created by thought, then what is the relationship of man who is full of thought, full of his images, his conclusions, his fears, what is the relationship between reality and that which is not created by thought? None at all, obviously. Right? I may talk about nature, I may talk about there is beauty of the mountains and the rivers and all the rest of it, but if one is enclosed within oneself, with one's problems, with one's ideas, with one's conclusions, illusions, and all that, there is no relationship at all.
Q: Sir, thought is the product of...
K: Are you asking, sir, how does thought arise? Are you asking, how does thought arise?
K: I will show it to you. If I may, if you will listen kindly, I will show it to you. I say to you, or to somebody, you are a fool. Now what is your reaction? You have an image about yourself that you are not a fool and you get annoyed. Right? Right? So experience of various kinds is registered in the brain, which is knowledge, and that knowledge with its memory is thought. The origin of thought is from the very beginning of time. Right? Every incident, every experience, every pain, physical, biological as well as psychological is registered in the brain, and that becomes a memory, and from that memory you act. So thought began with the origin of man. When is the origin of man? The scientists say twenty five million years and so on and on. If you want to investigate into that, go into it.
Q: Man is part of nature.
K: Are you? Biologically you may be, but are you part of nature? Go on sir, answer it for yourself, this doesn't require a great deal. Nature is all that, the rivers, the trees, the mountains, the birds, the endless seas, and so on. Are you all that? Or are you a Catholic, Protestant, Communist, Socialist?
So, sirs, you are not going forward with this. Now let us ask - we know what thought is, we know what thought has done, the most extraordinary things - technologically, surgically, medically, extraordinary things. And thought has also created lots of illusions, which we all know, which we don't have to go into. All that is reality. Right? Is that clear? Then what is the relationship of reality to truth? When you ask that question it means, it signifies that there is a truth. Right? Please listen carefully. We know now and have very clearly established between ourselves what is reality - sorrow, pain, insight, neurotic behaviour, all that is created by thought. So whatever thought creates is reality. Why doesn't man stay there? You understand my question? He is always probing. Right? He says, I acknowledge this, it is fairly clear, but there must be something more. Right? Are you following this, sir? So thought begins to investigate. Right? Is this clear, or not? Thought then, whatever it creates, is a reality. You understand this? One sees very clearly what is reality. Thought says, yes, I am very clear about that. But thought also says, that is not enough, there must be something much more. So either it projects a god, an eternity, a timeless state, but it is still the product of thought. Right? So it is still reality. I wonder if you see this. Do we see this a little bit, may we go on?
It is only when thought realizes its own limitations, then it won't investigate into that, if there is or if there is not. This is logic, isn't it, really clear? No? We said whatever thought creates is reality. When thought investigates into what it wants, hoping for something greater, it is still reality. So it is always moving in its own limitation, in its own area - it may extend it, it may contract it, it may say, well I am the universe, I am the cosmos, I am god, but it is still thought. Right? So thought cannot investigate into that, if there is that. Right?
Q: That is the only instrument we have.
K: Our Italian friend says, it is the only instrument we have. But if that instrument says, I cannot penetrate into something I don't know, it stops. Wait a minute, sir, see the fact of this. It can create, say, I know there is something, but it is still within the area of thought. I wonder if you see this simple thing. No? So thought, however sharp, however intelligent, however erudite, learned, experienced, it is still thought, a reality, as the building, as the microphone, and so on. So thought being the past, the outcome of the past, is limited by time. Right?
Q: You have said that the probing is necessary for thought to see itself.
K: I did not say that, sir. Look.
K: I said, sir - you see, I don't want to go back to this, we have already explained it ten times. So if you don't mind, sir, I won't go back into it.
See what thought does. Thought recognizes itself as a movement in time. Right? That is, thought being the outcome of the past knowledge, knowledge is always the past, so it is time-bound, so it is limited, so it is fragmentary. Now having been time-bound it says, there must be something timeless, because it wants that state because it says, this is too limited. Right? Right? So thought, which is the movement of time, tries to investigate into something which is timeless. Therefore that is impossible.
K: You will find out.
Q: So I cannot say the river is here.
K: What good does that make to you? I say yes, there is. You say, what nonsense, it might be an illusion.
Q: Can I put it in a different way: what is the capacity of thought to deal with meditation?
K: Sir, thought has no place in meditation.
Q: The capacity of thought in meditation.
K: Sir, look sir, as a human being living in this world there must be some kind of action, action, to act. I must do, action is life. And I want to find one human being who is fairly intelligent, fairly observing, knows what is happening in the world and so on and so on, and also what is happening in himself, says, what is the right action, what am I to do with all the surrounding misery? Right? That is what we are investigating - what am I to do. Not all your theories, speculations. To find out what is the total action, so that I have no regrets, no pain, no saying, my god, I wish I hadn't done that. To find that out we say, look, you must put everything in its right place. Right? Say, put thought in its right place, let thought put itself in the right place. Which is, thought has its right place, which is not only the world of technology, but also in the world of language, etc., etc., and thought being the outcome of the past, knowledge, is time-bound, therefore very limited. Right? And that is the only instrument we know. Is there another instrument which is not of this quality? But before we put that question you must find out exactly the limitation of thought, discover it, be aware of it, not just put, is there something else. Are you aware totally of the limitation of thought?
K: Is it partial being pregnant?
So, sir, what we are trying to find out is, what is man to do surrounded by this extraordinary confusion, uncertainty, poverty in every direction, what is one to do? You don't ask that question, you don't burn with that question. So we are trying to find out what do totally. So all action has been based on thought, either the thought which has said, I have done this, which has brought me pain, I will not do that, but if I do the other thing it will bring me pleasure, I will do that. That has been our action. Our action is based on reward and punishment, obviously. And that is the world we have lived in. And that world has no answer, it can keep on going round and round in that world saying, there is an answer, there is an answer, but it will always remain there. That is obvious.
So when there is an understanding of thought, and therefore putting thought in its right place, then what is the instrument, if there an instrument, which is not of thought? Right? But you must put it in the right place, not just say, let me investigate the other. That is what you are trying to do. You say, "I want to find the other before I give this up. I will give this up if that is much more profitable, if that is much more pleasurable". I say, "Sorry, thought whatever it does is limited". So what is there which is not of thought? If somebody has gone into it sufficiently deeply, you will see, then you will ask the question: is love thought? Go on, sir. Can thought cultivate love? And when it cultivates love, is it love? A man who is full of vanity cultivates humility, and he says, "I am very humble" - that humility is still vanity. Right?
So is love the product of thought? Answer it, sirs. If it is not, there is the action. Right? So as love is not manufactured by thought, then what is love? Is there such a thing at all?
Q: It is energy.
K: Oh, madam, listen.
Q: But I thought you said it was a dialogue.
K: But it is not just answering like that, love is energy. That doesn't mean anything.
Q: It means something to me.
K: All right. Is love thought? Go on, sirs. You say, it is not. Right? Then that may the new instrument.
Q: Love is the product of reward and punishment.
K: Oh, no, sir, I am afraid you don't understand English either, perhaps I may not understand English. Which is, I said our life is based on reward and punishment. Right? And that is the movement of thought. If I do this I will get that, which will be better. If I don't do this I may be punished - punished in the sense I will be unhappy, I will be in conflict, etc., etc. So we have gone beyond that, please.
So is love the new instrument?
Q: There is no instrument needed any more.
K: You are using the word 'instrument' like a screwdriver! We are not talking of that. That is why I didn't want to use instrument - that gentleman used that word instrument, I was just following it. It is not an instrument. Oh lord. We said everything that thought creates is reality. Is love a reality - in the sense we have used that word 'reality'? If it is not it is something entirely different, outside of thought. Right? Have you got it? Or just verbally say, "Yes, quite right, let's go on with it"?
So we said, love is not within the realm of thought. It is not sensation, which is the realm of thought. It is not in the realm of thought as pleasure. It is not in the realm of thought as desire. Right? Therefore love is not a remembrance. Right? Now has the brain, your brain, seen the fact of this, the reality of it? So as long as there is desire, pleasure, pursuit of pleasure, there is no love because all these are the product of thought. When there is love, what is the action - because we are concerned with that? Then what is the relationship between that which we call truth - which may not be - what is the relationship between something which is temporary - thought is temporary - right, I wonder if you see that - therefore it is time-binding. Now is there something which is not time-binding, which is not temporary, which is not based on reward and so on and so on? We say there is, which is love. Then what is the action in our daily life when there is love? Would you ask that question? You understand, sir, what I am asking?
Q: You said as long as there is the product of thought there is no love. Therefore as long as there is building, technology, there is no love.
K: Oh no, sir, you are going off. It is such a waste. I'll go on, sir.
What is the action of a man who has understood reality, not mentally, intellectually, but deeply, you follow. He has put reality in its right place. And perhaps he has that perfume of love. What is his action? Would you put such a question? Please say, no or yes. Let's find out. That's a wrong question, isn't it? If there is that thing called love then it acts - please follow this very carefully. In investigating the whole structure and the nature of all reality, and giving it its right place, the mind has become extraordinarily intelligent - not the intelligence of cunning, conspiratorial cunning. You follow? It has become extraordinarily sensitive, alive and therefore intelligent. Therefore that intelligence is not of thought.
Q: Would you allow a very small experiment?
K: Just a minute. Sorry, I am in the middle of a sentence.
Q: I know.
K: Sorry, I am not going to listen. Sorry I am in the middle of a sentence madam. Then please politely.
Q: Would you please listen to me? Please.
K: What were you going to say madam?
Q: I ask you very kindly. Well you have tried to make people see the concept of sensitivity as being either true or not. And more or less denied the role of the word or the image in making this clear. I would like to try to illustrate what you said.
K: I am asking a question about what you are saying, madam. Are you French or English?
Q: I was born in Holland a long time ago.
K: Which language do you speak easily?
Q: You speak English easily. Can you understand my English? Would you like to try?
K: Are you expressing easily in English?
K: Then please be brief.
Q: Yes. Sensitivity, the concept without the image, and without the use of words, I feel only through the concept you cannot ask people to see. The word sensitivity would perhaps mean something if I gave you a picture. There is a kind of sensitivity, it is rather like a dustbin, with the lid open and the bottom open. That's one. There is another kind that has the lid open and no bottom. I mean it keeps all that comes in and it relates it to the self, and it hangs on to that. Do you see? And there is no bottom. Then this goes right through.
K: Right, madam. All right, madam.
Q: Do you see what I am saying?
K: Kindly sit down.
Q: I was only trying to make things clear, and the words and images shouldn't be discarded as useless, you cannot only see things with your head.
K: Please sit down, you have stated what you wanted to say.
So if one has, if I may point out most respectfully, if one has gone into this, as we have gone, very closely, very hesitantly, into what is reality, and in seeing what is reality there is a sharpening of not only the intellect, not only your sensitivity, out of that comes a quality of intelligence which is not of thought. Right? If you have done it. Then that intelligence is love. Then action is dictated by that intelligence, wherever we are. It may say you become a gardener, or this or that, that intelligence is love and therefore that intelligence acts.
Then you can go on much further, if you want to, into it. Is intelligence, this intelligence, not the intelligences of cunning verbal disputation, dialectical opinions, and so on, but a mind that put everything in its right place - the building, the illusion, the fear, you follow, everything, therefore through observation there is intelligence. We are saying that is the new moment of action.
Now what is the relationship - I had better not enter into that. You will all - that will be theory, won't it. I would like to ask what is the relationship of intelligence to compassion, to clarity and skill? You understand? We said skill by itself has no meaning. It has a meaning that makes you more and more selfish, more and more egotistical, and limited. It becomes egotistic, limited because there is no clarity, and clarity comes with compassion. Right?
So in our daily life, our everyday life, not for a life of a few weeks at Saanen, but when you go back home, everyday of your life, can this operate, move? That is, compassion, clarity and skill. Because you must have skill in life, skill may be with one's hand, skill may be an intellectual skill, skill may be communication, verbal communication, but when that is without the other two it becomes what we have made the world into, cunning, deceptive, hypocrisy, using skill to achieve a status, and the moment you have status you become very proud, privileged, you know, all the rest of it. So where there is compassion, clarity and skill there is no vanity, no hypocrisy, no contradiction.
You see I would like to go into something much deeper, which is, what is the relationship when there is this total action, to meditation, meditation which is the complete emptying of all the content of one's consciousness, which we have talked about, and what is the relationship of that to total silence, emptiness? You understand, sir? One is afraid to use the word emptiness because we think emptiness, my god, that is nothing. After all I have worked and lived and I end up in emptiness? You follow? But when you have put everything in its right place, which is the art of living - the art of living is to give everything its proper place. That is the art of living, which is the greatest skill, and out of that orderly life one has this intelligence, which is love. And with love goes compassion, and clarity and skill. Now what is the relationship of intelligence to that which is the outcome, natural outcome, without effort, of total emptying of the mind of its content, which is meditation. You understand, we talked about it sufficiently.
What is the relationship of intelligence to silence? You understand? When there is the right kind of meditation, silence must be the central issue, the central core of meditation is the total emptying of all the fears and so on, so that consciousness as we know it doesn't exist. And what is the relationship of this intelligence to this total silence of emptiness? You understand it? No. One can go into it if you have gone that far. You understand? Not verbally but actually in daily life, then it is fun to explore. What time is it?
Q: Twelve o'clock.
Saanen 4th Public Dialogue 30th July 1977.
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.